Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I do not know where the logic for this provision is and I do not accept the argument in regard to social inclusion. What is meant by social engineering? Let us imagine a case where a person has had to move from the family home because of domestic violence. That person would be entitled to rent supplement and may want the minimum disruption for his or her children and may want to keep them in the local schools and connected to the local football club or after school activities. He or she will be required to move out of the area. Essentially, that is what will happen. There was a reference earlier to young people staying in the area in which they grew up where they have social supports and family. They are the people who will be excluded if they require rent supplement. This has more to do with protecting investment than social inclusion. If this is started in one area in regard to regeneration there are plenty of other areas such as section 23 reliefs for apartment blocks where an argument could be made for extending it to those locations on the basis that it would be a double support from the State. It is difficult enough for people with rent support to find accommodation without further excluding them. Many landlords simply will not accept rent supplement. One can see notices in newspaper advertisements telling people not to bother contacting the landlords in question if they are in receipt of rent assistance. What most people will read into this is that there may be a tax irregularity or that people may not be declaring income. I ask the Minister to rethink this retrograde step, which is a very bad idea. It is outrageous to hold out the hope of a new regenerated area and then tell people with the most direct connection to it that they are not welcome there.

My second point concerns community welfare officers. This is one system that works. If somebody in trouble calls in to one's constituency office on a Friday afternoon, the one person from whom one feels one will receive an immediate answer is the community welfare officer. This role is beginning to change significantly. The housing aspect of this role will be dealt with by local authorities which, in many cases, are remote from the areas in which people are living. The potential flexibility of the community welfare officer's role is being eroded. This has not been very well thought out.

It is a safety net that works and we need cogent arguments to change it. This is not simply an industrial relations issue, rather, it concerns how we deliver services to people in emergencies who need them. This must be the key issue addressed in terms of any change made in respect of community welfare officers. The points by community welfare officers in respect of the loss of flexibility are very well made and we should pay a great deal of attention to them.

See this speech in context